Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Muhammad is Britain’s most popular boys name

The thoroughly contemptible British government will no doubt welcome this as good news: “diversity” has triumphed! And its greatest benefits are yet to come: civil war, mass murder, slavery. What a bright future Britain has! “Muhammed Is Britain’s Most Popular Boys Name,” by Andre Walker, Breitbart, August 15, 2014:

As exclusively reported by Breitbart London last week, Muhammed has been crowned Britain’s most popular boys name in figures published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) today. The name of the Muslim prophet beat Oliver as the most popular boys name chosen by parents in Britain in 2013.

As a result of the way the statistics are put together, the name does not appear to have won, as the ONS classifies each of the different spellings as a different entry on the list. This means that “Muhammad” came in 15th with 3,499 children but “Mohammed” was 23rd with 2,887 and “Mohammad” was 57th with 1059 given the name.

As a result the top three spellings alone accounted for the names of 7,445 boys, easily beating the second most popular name Oliver which got just 6,949. Also the statistics are only published for the top 100 names, so the even more obscure spellings of Mohammed are likely to push the total even higher.

News that Mohammed is the most popular boys name in Britain was first exclusively reported on Breitbart London following a leak at the ONS last week. At the time, Mohammed was already the most popular boys name in London by some considerable margin.

The scale of the result is likely to leave the public shocked, although much of the mainstream media are expected to focus on the official ONS results. As a result, they will report that Mohammed only came in 15th, ignoring the multiple entries. In previous years, media outlets in Britain have not aggregated the various spellings and have only published the top 20 names, which makes it seem like traditional names remain dominant.

Muhammad is so popular as a name because the three million Muslims in Britain tend to like to name at least one of their sons after the prophet. This makes the name much more popular amongst Muslim families than any name is amongst Christians.

In 2002, the Muhammad spelling of the name was the 61st most popular boys name in Britain. In the same period the number of Muslims in Britain has doubled.

The ‘report’ does not make clear until the end that this is among Muslim parents. Obviously Muslims favour that name of their ‘prophet’ so called.
I do not think you will find a single NON Muslim wanting to name their son by that name. The poor kid would be guaranteed a hard time when he goes to school!

It doesn’t matter how you calculate it or what you focus on, the trend is clear. The outcome is also clear, social destabilization, a loss of culturea nd identity and outright fear of safety. It is a triumph of political correctness and its absence of principle or depth. It is too late for Britain, but is it possible that an election in the US will bring in somebody who will stop immigration from Muslim countries on the grounds of treason: they hope to establish caliphate and sharia and end Democracy. Why is not the support of Democracy a condition for entering the country?

The sun set on the Empire long ago, Liza Jones. Now it’s setting on the Mother Country.

This steady Islamization of Britain (N.B., it doesn’t take that large of a percentage of Muslims or followers of any totalitarian ideology to completely change the destiny of a nation—–look to Lenin and his damn fellow Bolsheviks for confirmation of this contention) is a monumental, self-induced tragedy in the making. It’s just about the saddest thing I have ever come across in my life. There is still time to reverse this tragedy for Britain——but not much time. And the reversal will require the virtual elimination of two things: 1) Muslim immigration to Britain; 2) the death of political correctness and multiculturalism (and possibly even a third matter, i.e., Muslim emigration, voluntary or involuntary). Don’t detect either of these in sight. Does anyone?

Every street of Europe should be on fire until every Muslim has been expelled from within its borders. Not a single Muslim should be allowed to step foot on European lands. Nothing short of that can save Europe.

They are being overrun by the Islamic menace, yet they stand idly by and watch it happen. How proud they must be of their heritage of freedom to welcome its demise–and not a hint of resistance to show for it.

These converts are invariably individuals who marry muslims, ie white women marrying into the religion or white women looking for muslim dick. It’s also become popular with young, disaffected black males who are drawn to islam’s anti-white, rebellious and militant nature.

“Well what about native born who convert to Islam or muslim who are born in European nation.”

Not to worry, Brian; a few stalwart Jihad Watchers are on your side on this question, vehemently defending Muslims in this regard (and many others in these hallowed halls passively acquiesce to (or way too late, offer an ineffectually limp wrist of mild protest against) their brown-shirt tactics in trying to browbeat and demonize those who would dare disagree with them).
.

“ their brown-shirt tactics in trying to browbeat and demonize those who would dare disagree with them”

The irony here is that voeg is the one with the history of using brow-shirt tactics to demonize whoever disagrees with him. Like, for example, misrepresenting their position, ascribing to them things they never said or did, or demanding other JW regulars to step in and defend him.

Well what about native born who convert to Islam or muslim who are born in European nation. That is the touble with you racist.

Especially the native converts: Cat Stevens, George Galloway, Jemima Khan, and so forth. They can go anywhere they want to–Saudi Arabia, for all I care–as long as it isn’t to a free country. Khan can take her wretch (Russell Brand) of a boyfriend along–about as despicable an individual as you will find, yet he is cheered by many for his social commentary. I won’t comment specifically on Stevens and Galloway out of respect to harsh words.

There is a world of difference between someone born into Islam and a free person who chooses to become a Muslim. Jemima Khan, for instance–of a Judeo-Christian background–has birthed children for the Ummah. What would possess a well-to-do woman to do such a thing? The thought of it alone is sickening.

That was my dad’s first name too. I hate that name along with Ali which is the second most popular name in Iran. I named all 4 of boys true Farsi and non Arabic names. As we say in Farsi: Reedam beh Muhammas..means I take a s…on muhamd. M

Miriam, you Iranians have the BEST names to pick from. If I was Iranian (or marry an Iranian) for girls names I would pick (or try to convince!) either Naghmeh or Niloufar and for boys names Kian or Koroush.

I just hope and pray your glorious and beautiful motherland will be free from her 1400 years of islamic horror. It is sad at the moment that the west is becoming increasingly islamized, what may become of our and our childrens future? And where will islamic apostates flee too? Nonetheless, it seems that your motherland is gradually shaking itself free of muhammadanism one apostate at a time. Best wishes 🙂

There were 706,248 babies born in the UK in 2013 according to the Daily Mail link above. There were about 1% babies with Mo’s name in one form or another. As far as I can figure, each Muslim baby boy is most probably called Mo for one form or another. Hence the probability of a Muslim baby boy called Mo is about 99% or more. Hence the truth is that the Muslims’ most preferred name is Mo and it has always been that way. Mo is not the most preferred name in the UK, because no one other than a Muslim will call their son Mo.

Don´t forget the demographical suicide being committed by most if not all European nations. It is worse in Italy, Spain and Poland than in Britain. Since Muslims have about 10 children, and often with up to four wives, then you can see how in a generation or two they will be a majority. That was what Oriana Falacci called conwuering Europe by means of the “politics of the womb”. In Germany, it is common for the Mulsim to have four wives and the German Social Secuity System to pay subsidies to three of them as they are registered as unwed mothers. Then, with the acceptance of sharia law in many places in Britian, they can divorce by telling the woman 3 times that she is divorced.

Its a whole disaster in the making and the Europena taxpayer is financing his own future slavery and that of his children (the few he is willing to have)

The U.S. would be in a similar deomgrsphic situation if it were not for Hispanic immigration. In any case, the U.S, conquered half of Mexico in 1848. So, Mexicans are just claiming part of what was robbed from their ancesters, and in the process doing a favor to the U.S, by working and having children, which is the only future of any nation.

The southwestern US wasn’t robbed but rather won in warfare. But even if, for argument’s sake, it was robbed, didn’t the Spaniards (Hispanics) rob it from the Indians who robbed it from one another?

I know you may mean well but I am exceedingly tired of whites being castigated for robbing land (or for having slavery, or for being avaricious, or…, or…, or….) when everyone else did the same damn thing. Besides, care to argue that the present southwestern US, won in warfare and confirmed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, would be better off still being part of Mexico?

Something else: What world more than the Western world has apologized for its past wrongdoings and has sought to make amends for such wrongdoings? Your turn.

I am not white
You are right. Whites must understand that their arrogance of being the moral compass for the world is stabbing their entire race and that of others (non muslims) who love the fairness, freedom and scientific bent afforded by that culture. Instead whites have abdicated their responsibility by bringing in Muslim cancer. To what benefit – Curry, kebabs and Complete annihilation

I taught English in Turkey a few years back when it appeared more civilised. Anyway, I was chatting to this Turkish guy in some bar and asked how many kids he had. 4 sons he said. Next day in class I recounted to my students what a nice evening I’d had chatting away to some friendly geezer with four sons. A female student piped up that he also had two daughters, she being one of them. Very telling, don’t you think?

It was funny the statement that not many Christians name their children Mohammed. Firstly they probably continue to have very large families whereas Christians most likely have 1 or 2. Soon there might not be Christian names

How RACIST of you to complain about all the defective children that have been created just because Muslims want to exercise their freedom of religion! You should be happy to pay all those extra medical costs to cover what the beautiful Religion of Peace has brought to your land!

In Islamic countries, the name “Mohammed” (in it’s various phonetical forms) is more of a prefix than an actual name. For example in Pakistan, 70% or more of males have the name Mohammed before their actual given names, e.g. Mohammed Akthar, or Mohammed Javaid, or Mohammed Suleman…. etc.

So yes Mohammed is the most popular name not only in Islamic countries, but as this virus spreads world wide I presume, unfortunately it will be the most popular name in the world for a long time to come… unless more and more Muslims are made aware of the evils of Islam and it’s founder, and like Mariam Rove, reverse the naming of their children in honor of more humane personalities or culturally meaningful names rather than ignorantly picking the name “Mohammed”, after the genocidal maniac of all times.

UK you are on your way to the Islamic hell in a hand basket….. I hope you enjoy the trip!

And it is now among the top popular boy’s names in Minnesota—Debbie Schussel has written about this. Minnesota is a place that just a few short years ago was known as salt-of-the-earth middle America—a place that Garrison Keillor poked gentle fun at for its decent but sometimes dull Scandinavian roots.

At this point, it’s as likely to be known for its Somalis running off to wage violent Jihad…

The article speaks volumes of the insidious nature of British, indeed, Western muslims. They glorify in the wanton massacres exacted by groups like IS and boko haram. They have an almost schizophrenic mindset suffused with a psychotic belief.

Demography is Destiny. This is why Islamic polygamy should be outlawed by the world. What gives them the right to over-breed when no one else is? That’s one way they conquer – by numbers. It’s called Demographic Jihad.

Your point is a sound one, Mirren, but I would add that even one new-born child in Britain named Mohammed is one too many. And to have thousands so named in Britain points to a demographic possibility because of Muslim fecundity that simply can’t be relegated to the bin of “no or little concern.”

Much trouble ahead for Britain. So many thousands of new-born babes in Britain named “Mohammed” has no upside to it respecting Britain’s future as a free society. In fact, every person in Britain named Mohammed could arguably be looked upon, in a symbolic way if not an actual one, as someone pointing a dagger at the heart of Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, the Reform Bills, et al., never even mind the extra-constitutional, extra-legal, but still quite important Golden Rule for all, respecting which any person named Mohammed could only have a regard for if he is a bad Muslim.

“The problem with this unique enemy is that it doesn’t have one single “head” — there are 1.3 billion heads to this Hydra monster.”

Well, perhaps my choice of image wasn’t best. But I definitely mean Islam can and, if we want to survive as free people, must be destroyed. Islam is hyper proud, hyper triumphalistic, hyper macho cult. Its self esteem and self image is so madly and fantastically blown up, that it makes it extremely brittle vis a vis a massive humiliation. Start with Mecca. Obliterate the grand mosque and the Kaaba, the Medina Mosque, al Aqsa Mosque. There are ways to do it without loss of human life. Unfortunately, I can’t say how it is possible as my comment may be deleted as it has been before when I explained “the method”.
But let the West start global ridiculing, denigrating, mocking the Koran, Muhammad and Allah offensive the way the Allies media ridiculed Hitler and Hirohito. For mohammedans to witness the humiliation of their Hyper-Macho Allah by the Kufar without Allah’s responding in tsunami or earthquake-like fury, not even a whimper, would be sure sign that their Allah is a small puny god. A punk.
Christianity would survive the Vatican and each of its loftiest cathedrals ransacked and turned into mosque, but Islam could not endure a similar humiliation. There could be no greater shock for a moslem than witnessing the impotence of their god vis a vis a horrifically sacrilegious act of Christians. We have means to prepare such a shock. I pray the West will do so when the time is right.

”…our stalwart Jihad Watch veteran Angemon…would say that this global demographic at war with the free world is not significantly different from any other demographic.”

Oh, Angemon…right…
Well, I don’t really read the fellow unless I am directly involved in an exchange with him, But yes, I do believe he is able of authoring such absurdity.

So you choose to believe an hypothesis regarding what I may (or not) say brought forth by someone with an history of misrepresenting other people’s points (especially when talking about me or Philip Jihadski) even though you don’t really read what I post unless it’s in an exchange with you? Good going! (bonus question: point out where I mention “demographics” other than quoting voeg)

Well I have seen your moniker here for a few years before without ever addressing you. So it is not exactly wrong of me to say I don’t read your comments. What caught my attention while automatically scanning along the page is the name “voegelinian”.
Now, he sometimes gets on my nerves, but I nevertheless am always curious to hear what he has to say as he writes in a coherent, well expressed, and challenging, even confrontational way. This can at times be quite irritating, but also stimulating.
He expresses himself with precision and freshness, eschews trite, worn out, prefabricated phrases and catchwords and, very important, he is often right. In short, there is always a good chance one will be entertained reading the guy.

Anyway, the comment caught my eye because I spotted his name and I got into it before I saw you are its author. We had an exchange and, despite my admitting being wrong about crucial fact, my tentative opinion about your reasoning powers, standard of argumentation and analytical prowess has not been weakened.

Now is it so strange that seeing your comment next day on the other thread I hurried to peek inside eager to see how correct was my freshly formed opinion about you? I admit being very pleased to see it fully confirmed. It was quite fun and I actually may, for some time at least, read your comments in anticipation of more amusement. By now I am sure you will deliver.

“So you choose to believe an hypothesis regarding what I may (or not) say brought forth by someone with an history of misrepresenting other people’s points…?”

Well, I don’t know about ”other people”, but he has been amazingly correct about you.
Otherwise, this is not about believing hypothesis. It is reading the absurdity itself as demonstrated below:

Voeg says:
“the one demographic, Muslims, is unique and ought not be compared, as they do with such glib obtuseness, with all other demographics”

What voeg means here by ”not to be compared” is that moslems demographics by virtue of being a carrier of the ”killer culture-Islam” is a category in itself unshared by any other demographics.

And her comes your response:

”That’s crazy talk. If we can’t compare muslims with jews, christians, or anyone else then how are we supposed to say “our values are better”? ”

Wow, you latch into the word ”compare” and deliver a conventionally sounding, but totally incongruous, out of place statement.

“Now, he sometimes gets on my nerves, but I nevertheless am always curious to hear what he has to say as he writes in a coherent, well expressed, and challenging, even confrontational way.”

Yeah, like that time he claimed I was either a troll or had brain damage for question his posts, or that other time he whined because other JW regulars didn’t jump out to white-knight him when me and Philip Jihadski were questioning his posts, which prompted said regulars to tell him to grow up. Really inspiring stuff!

“We had an exchange and, despite my admitting being wrong about crucial fact, my tentative opinion about your reasoning powers, standard of argumentation and analytical prowess has not been weakened.”

You’re talking about the discussion where I pointed out voeg was wrong and slavery in europe predated the late 16th century, right? It’s the one where you claimed what I said was wrong (more than once), tried to misrepresent my point and ended up admitting I was right all along. In any way, the crux of the matter was this: I knew my facts, history and what I was talking about, you kept insisting I was wrong. Arguing against history and facts doesn’t set a good precedent for you. BTW, is it wrong to think you only started that argument with me because I was replying to voeg and you wouldn’t have addressed me if had said the same thing to someone else?

“Well, I don’t know about ”other people”, but he has been amazingly correct about you.”

Actually, he hasn’t. As for “other people”, I believe Jovial Joe, Philip Jihadski or Wellington (and that’s from the top of my head) also have noticed how voeg refuses to give a straight answer when questioned, misrepresents their points or mentions them out of the blue to put words in their mouths.

“Otherwise, this is not about believing hypothesis. It is reading the absurdity itself as demonstrated below”

Really? Did you read “this global demographic at war with the free world is not significantly different from any other demographic” in any of my posts (other than quoting voeg, that is)? Because I don’t remember writing it. But you’re saying you read it. There’s a name for what you just did: lie.

Wait, why am I trying to talk sense into you? Your mind is already made up: muslims are the dangerous ones and non-muslims are the harmless ones. It’s no wonder voeg’s demagogy suits your fancy or that you’re so keen to defend him and adopt his tactics. I’d bid you farewell, but I have the feeling that as long as I keep questioning and objecting voeg’s questionable and objectionable logic you’ll be there to white-knight him. So a run of the mill “see ya next time” will have to suffice.

“But you’re saying you read it. There’s a name for what you just did: lie.”

I never said I read it written by you! What a miserable liar you are.

In my comment preceding the last one I said about you:

“… yes, I do believe he is able of authoring such absurdity.”
That’s all.

Now, do you want to say that anyone who thinks you are an obtuse, sloppy plodder must be a liar? Well, for some, especially obtuse plodders, this is a favourite way to deal with unpleasant facts.

It is 01:10 am here and don’t feel like wasting more time on your desperately confused ranting. Had you not to called me a liar, just because you sense that I am aware you are an intellectually wishy-washy, hopelessly unexciting, sub-intellectual, I would have never had responded.

“… yes, I do believe he is able of authoring such absurdity.”
That’s all.”

To which I answered:

“So you choose to believe an hypothesis regarding what I may (or not) say”

And you replied:

“this is not about believing hypothesis. It is reading the absurdity itself”

Turns out, there was more after “That’s all”. How quaint!

“Now, do you want to say that anyone who thinks you are an obtuse, sloppy plodder must be a liar? Well, for some, especially obtuse plodders, this is a favourite way to deal with unpleasant facts.

It is 01:10 am here and don’t feel like wasting more time on your desperately confused ranting. Had you not to called me a liar, just because you sense that I am aware you are an intellectually wishy-washy, hopelessly unexciting, sub-intellectual, I would have never had responded.”

This need to claim others as intellectually inferiors seems to be a staple of voeg’s bandwagon. Trying to compensate for something, are you? Anyway, it seems you’re no stranger to gratuitous and uncalled attacks. That’s a tactic straight from the leftist playbook and it tells me all I ever needed to know about you.

Anyway, now that the the fake indignation and personal attacks routines are done for, I can’t help to notice that my question remains unanswered: is it wrong to think he only started that argument with me because I was replying to voeg and he wouldn’t have addressed me if had said the same thing to someone else? Oh well, if the answer is “No” then as long as I keep questioning and objecting voeg’s questionable and objectionable logic he’ll be there to white-knight him. We’ll see soon enough.

“Now, do you want to say that anyone who thinks you are an obtuse, sloppy plodder must be a liar?”

Considering that a) I flat out told you what was a lie and b) I had no idea that’s what you thought of me, I say you need to stop smoking whatever it is you’re smoking and stick to commenting on what actually happens…

“Considering that a) I flat out told you what was a lie and b) I had no idea that’s what you thought of me, I say you need to stop smoking whatever it is you’re smoking and stick to commenting on what actually happens…”

Gosh, you shameless fraud.
You “told (me) flat out what was a lie”? How? By lying some more?
You are dumber than I thought, and I really think you are dumb, if you believe your pathetically ham-fisted, copy-clip-omit-paste, doctoring of my posts can somehow escape attention of anyone reasonably un-dyslectic.

Once again:

On August 16, 2014 at 7:34 pm I wrote:

“yes, I do believe he is able of authoring such absurdity”

– which was a response to Voegelinian’s musing:

”…our stalwart Jihad Watch veteran Angemon…would say that this global demographic at war with the free world is not significantly different from any other demographic.”

And that WAS all.

Now you quoted my above statement:
“yes, I do believe he is able of authoring such absurdity”
and pasted next to it – incompletely – from a response to you on August 17, 2014 at 2:24 pm:
“this is not about believing hypothesis. It is reading the absurdity itself”.
But that’s a brazen forgery as you, besides making it appear as if they belong in the same context, conveniently skipped the last part of the sentence .
The original sentence was and is:
“this is not about believing hypothesis. It is reading the absurdity itself as demonstrated below :”
whereupon I proceed to demonstrate its absurdity.

Whether I succeed to demonstrate its absurdity is a completely different matter. What matters is that I demonstrated your stinking dishonesty in fabricating evidence on par with the one produced by Hamas.

So who is lying? I, or you, who stitches together mutilated excerpts from two different postings of two different dates and yells “gotcha!”.

“Anyway, now that the the fake indignation and personal attacks routines are done for, I can’t help to notice that my question remains unanswered: is it wrong to think he only started that argument with me because I was replying to voeg and he wouldn’t have addressed me if had said the same thing to someone else? Oh well, if the answer is “No” then as long as I keep questioning and objecting voeg’s questionable and objectionable logic he’ll be there to white-knight him. We’ll see soon enough.”

What in the world is that gibberish about?
But let me guess: do you mean I hastened to Voeg’s defence as he was swaying under the barrage of your superbly delivered, irrefutable arguments?
You comical, conceited fool capable only of delivering insipid triteness (beside inept counterfeiting) do you really think Voeg needs my help to kick your butt so only your ridiculous moniker remains intact?
Do you think anyone does? How pathetically deluded you are…
Read my lips, poor man: YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE WALKOVER.
get used to it.

PS.“I say you need to stop smoking whatever it is you’re smoking“.
Gosh, how absolutely brilliant! The wit, the wit of it! How original! Well, …just kidding. But didn’t I just say you are only capable of delivering insipid triteness? Well, keep on dazzling us with it.

BTW, I smoke American Spirit.
Good stuff, but you shouldn’t try it. Too strong for your puny brain.

“Now you quoted my above statement:
“yes, I do believe he is able of authoring such absurdity”
and pasted next to it – incompletely – from a response to you on August 17, 2014 at 2:24 pm:
“this is not about believing hypothesis. It is reading the absurdity itself”.
But that’s a brazen forgery as you, besides making it appear as if they belong in the same context, conveniently skipped the last part of the sentence .”

This is, of course, blatantly false: They’re related, and no amount of gaslighting or bitter invective throwing will change that. As for leaving out the last part, its presence won’t change anything so that’s a moot point. The rest of the post is just an array of random insults coming from someone who apparently is trying to compensate for something. Oh well.

I would like to say I pity you being so dumb, but that wouldn’t be true. You got the brain you deserve to fit your uprightness, dignity and honesty.

“Compensating for something” ? – you wonder. Well, keep on wondering.

But since we are at “compensation”, I’m quite sure your being a liar is not compensating for anything. It is your primary feature.
You have no capacity for embarrassment.
If Obama had an uncle it would sound like you.

I can’t speak for the ladies, but since you address me (among other gentlemen) I take the liberty to tell you that you have made a total fool of yourself. But it was fun to watch.
Bravo! Encore! Encore!

not “And that, ladies and gentlemen,except flakmusic, was thomas_h demonstrating…”

Had you added that qualification I would have stayed away. But since you haven’t I thought I am included in the ”ladies and gentlemen” address. Was I wrong?

And no. It wasn’t my first post, or tenth post. I have been posting sporadically on the JW for at least a year and lurking for much longer. But, otherwise, what this has to do with my comment? Do you own the site and I need to ask you for a permission to post here? If I’ve broken a blogging rule do make me aware of it.

And just a short, rhetorical, question: would you have responded in the same way if I were congratulating you on skewering Thomas H – not vice versa??

“And just a short, rhetorical, question: would you have responded in the same way if I were congratulating you on skewering Thomas H – not vice versa??”

I’ll answer it anyway. As long as you said I addressed you, my answer would include that bit ad verbatim. But it’s a rhetorical question, so either you don’t care about the answer or your mind is already made up. So… yeah.

“Angemon—with respect—I *do* believe that a large Muslim population, as indicated by the story above, *really is* more dangerous for Infidels than is one with a small Muslim population or none.

I know that you have expressed skepticism over this before, writing:

“The fallacy here is that one can also not ‘adequately’ tell the difference between the dangerous and harmless white, or black, or hispanic, or catholic, or protestant, or jewish, or atheist people.””

Erm, what? That’s a voegelinian misrepresentation of my point, and it’s not the first time you do something like that. I’m starting to wonder if you’re doing it on purpose by now…

Look, if I were to pick 10 people off the street could you tell me:

a) Which of them are muslims?

b) Which of them are dangerous?

How about 100 people, or 1000? You can’t. You just can’t. There’s nothing special about saying that you can’t tell dangerous and harmless muslims apart because it’s the same for members of any given religious or ethnic group. Now, how do you go from that to pretending I’m being skeptic on the dangers of a large muslim population? I told you before that we need to stop muslim immigration and keep a close watch on those who are already here. You should know better by now. Shame on you. Shame. On. You.

Speaking on behalf of my many British friends who live here in the States and across the pond – allowing Islam into your nation – no, not into – allowing Islam to destroy your nation is unacceptable. The rich ancient culture of the British Isles is at risk: can you imagine Stonehenge being destroyed by these monsters? That’s precisely what they did to those irreplaceable Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.

The UK needs to “man up”, deport every single Muslim on their soil. Islam has no business existing in the UK and more than it does the USA.

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer. in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to its respectful owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.